Open main menu

User talk:Panda10



Hello, I have a question for you: what is the declension of úszóhártya? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the declension table. :) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. --Panda10 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I came across that term and hógömb at the page "Short Pages," which can be found at the Community Portal (mind the Simplified Chinese entries, I think). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
One example I found at Short Pages is the Hungarian verb variál. Would you like to conjugate that? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I wish the short pages were separated by language. I expanded variál. --Panda10 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the least I could do to help you expand the Hungarian short pages is to look for them; and I'm patient with that. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be very helpful. Thank you. --Panda10 (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to have a look at my list of contributions for any Hungarian terms to which I added hu-IPA. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will do that. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Hungarian language former Short PagesEdit

Is it okay if I place a list of Hungarian language former short pages (you know, the ones I added hu-IPA to) on your user page or my user page? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked your contributions for Hungarian entries as we agreed previously and I saved over 230 items in a text file for future work. I have already corrected those where hu-IPA needed a phonetical respelling. I see that you cleaned up the short list pretty well. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian non-attributive possessiveEdit

I came across the entries in Category:hu-inflection of with unsupported tag/nonattr, which are for the "non-attributive possessive". As there are only three of these entries, I wonder if this is a normal form that all nouns have. The Hungarian noun inflection table doesn't list them.

Another thing I wonder is whether possessives can be stacked on top of case forms. That is, can you use one word to say "in my house"? In Finnish you can, so I wonder if it's the same in Hungarian. —CodeCat 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The non-attributive possessive forms were originally part of {{hu-decl}}, rows 7 and 8. If you notice those are missing from the sequence. They were deleted by Qorilla. I think they should be part of the declension table since all nouns can have them.
Possessive forms can be declined. In my house is one word in Hungarian: házamban: ház (house) -am (mine) -ban (in). Years ago I created {{hu-possessive-ak}} as an experiment but other did not like it at the time, so we went with the two-table format (a separate possessive). This also meant that I have to add a declension table to each possessive form (see házam - my house). --Panda10 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I do like the approach of treating possessives as sublemmas, as otherwise we would end up with noun entries with 13 inflection tables each. I notice that the ordering of the suffixes is the opposite from Finnish, where the order is plural-case-possessive. In Hungarian it's plural-possessive-case, I think?
I think that the non-attributive possessives should be re-added to the table. If they are forms that nouns normally have, then they belong there and should have entries. But I wonder if there isn't a less awkward term for it than "non-attributive", unless that's a standard term that English-language grammars of Hungarian always use. Can you describe under what circumstances the non-attributive form is used? Is it ever inflected like the other possessives? If I recall, Hungarian adjectives are not inflected when they are attributive, so is it related to that? —CodeCat 21:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we would end up with 13 inflection tables for each noun. I was thinking about one larger table containing all noun forms instead of the current two smaller tables with missing forms plus another declension table in each possessive form entry. But I have no problem with the current arrangement. A larger table might be too confusing.
Unfortunately, I don't speak Finnish. In Hungarian, the order is either lemma+case (ház+-ban = in the house) or lemma+plural+case (ház+-ak+-ban = in the houses) or lemma+possessive+case (ház+-am+-ban = in my house, ház+-aim+-ban = in my houses).
I agree, the term non-attributive possessive is weird, I've seen it in a language article and decided to use it because I did not know what else to use. Basically, it expresses possession without an object. The standard term in Hungarian is birtokjel (possessive marker) which is the name of the suffix and not the case.
Usage examples:
  • Ez a garázs ablaka, nem a házé. = This is the window of the garage, not that of the house.
  • Ez kinek a háza? A lányodé? (lány daughter +-od your + 's) = Whose house is this? Your daughter's?
A noun with this marker can be inflected. Take a look at this URL [1]. You will see how the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences handles declension of the noun ház. Each > sign in the main table will open a subtable with further declension. --Panda10 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Based on Finnish, I would say that the -i- in the possessives is a plural marker. This plural marker is historically reconstructed back to Proto-Uralic, so its appearance in the possessives is an archaism. So házaimban would be háza- (stem) -i- (plural) -m- (possessive) -ban (case). Finnish possessives are structured the same, just with a different order of suffixes: talo-i-ssa-ni, or if you were to use the actual cognate of the Hungarian word, kod-i-ssa-ni.
Normally, the opposite of attributive is predicative. So could it be called predicative instead of non-attributive? I also see similarities with English, where the possessive determiners have special pronoun forms that are used predicatively. It seems that házé is similar to mine in how it's used (the meaning is different of course).
I've also been thinking about the definition lines for possessives that {{hu-inflection of}} currently shows. They are a bit clunky. The difficulty is that there are both the number of the noun and the number of the possessor to account for. What do you think of phrasing it like this? For házam, it would be "first-person singular possessive of ház", and for házaim it would be "nominative plural of házam, the first-person singular possessive of ház". —CodeCat 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition line

My preference would be:
  • házam - "first-person singular possessive of ház (single possession)"
  • házaim - "first-person singular possessive of ház (multiple possessions)"

English name for the -é suffix

As I mentioned before, originally the -é suffix was listed in the case table and was called the genitive case. Mate Juhasz (and not Qorilla) removed it in 2008 saying "There is no genetive case in Hungarian, take a look at:". Linguists are arguing about this, but I've found a recent work that argues for it. Here are some of the other variants:

Location of the -é suffix

If we put it back to the case table, we will have to add a new parameter to allow hiding these two rows. Since the same declension table is used for sublemmas, adjectives, numerals, and pronouns, it is not always appropriate. For example, see the declension of házé. If the -é suffix is not hidden, it would display *házéé. --Panda10 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The way I see it, házam is kind of a noun of its own, and it has a full declension including its own case forms and plural form. So to me it makes sense to see házaim as the plural of házam. Is there a reason why you disagree with this approach?
As for the genitive, it's not common for genitives to be limited to predicate only. So this may be why there is disagreement over that. How would you say "the man's house" or "my friend's house"? Is the genitive not used for that? —CodeCat 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between the plural suffix (-k) and the possessive plural (-i). So házaim cannot be the "nominative plural of házam" because the nominative plural of házam would be *házamak, a non-existent word. We cannot just come up with our own naming conventions for things. I always search for references written by professionals to see their terminology.
I am not attached to the name "genitive" for the -é suffix. I described what was previously and listed some of the references I've found. I'd be happy with any of them. "the man's house" - a férfi háza; "my friend's house" - a barátom háza. --Panda10 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The normal plural and possessive plural have different suffixes, yes. But in both cases, they refer to a plural object, so they are plural. Consider it this way: my ház is házam, my házak are házaim. Multiple ház are házak, multiple házam are házaim. That clearly shows that while there are different plural formations, they still belong to the same semantic pattern. —CodeCat 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The personal interpretation of foreign language grammar rules can be very useful when we try to understand and memorize them. So if it makes sense to you to see házaim as the plural of házam, that's your personal view. But I don't think we should explain grammar rules here in wiktionary based on personal views. The word házaim is not a further declined form of házam, therefore it cannot be called its nominal plural. It is formed from the lemma ház + -ai (possessive plural marker, one of -i, -ai, -ei, -jai, -jei) + -m (first-person possessive suffix). My preference for the definition line is still what I listed above. --Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that the article w:Hungarian noun phrase also describes things as I did. It even says "Before possessive suffixes, the plural k appears as ai or ei", which would imply that they are analysed as one and the same. Further down, it also says "The following suffixes are used for plural nouns:", which again clearly treats them as plurals. —CodeCat 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we all agree that -i is the possessive plural marker. However, what you stated was that házaim is the nominative plural of házam. And that is not a correct statement because házaim is not a further declined form of házam, therefore it cannot be called its nominal plural. --Panda10 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
From a morphological point of view that's true. házaim is not derived from házam by suffixation. But from a semantic point of view, one is definitely the plural of the other. And we normally consider the semantic inflections on Wiktionary, not the morphology. For example, better can't possibly be called a comparative of good in a morphological sense, but it clearly is semantically. children is formed irregularly from child. Similarly, in Slovene, ljudje is the plural of človek even though they are nothing alike. And in Finnish, the pronouns hän and tuo have the plurals he and nuo even though the Finnish plural is normally created with -t. So in light of all these examples, I don't understand what the objection is to treating házaim as the plural of házam. Yes, the Hungarian plural is normally created with -k, but that doesn't mean there can't be exceptions. If "my houses" is not semantically the plural of "my house", then how would you describe the relationship between them? —CodeCat 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Which words decline in Hungarian?Edit

I'm guessing nouns and pronouns do, but what about adjectives? Do they have cases? —CodeCat 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjectives and numerals are also declined. I use the same declension templates for all. See informális and három. What is the goal of the changes you are making in the Hungarian declension templates? --Panda10 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
They are internal changes, to make them easier to manage. —CodeCat 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Essive-modal caseEdit

I've come across some nouns which do have an essive-modal singular form, but no essive-modal plural. I'm not sure if this is an error or not, so I'd like to make sure. And if this is not a mistake, then are there also nouns that have the plural but not the singular (other than plural-only nouns)? —CodeCat 20:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically, all nouns could have the essive-modal suffix, but most will not make sense and are not used at all. That's why this should be optional. --Panda10 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

krinolin and varrónőEdit

These entries have module errors due to missing parameters, and I have no clue how to fix them, since I know next to nothing about Hungarian. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New Hungarian nominal inflection templateEdit

After some work I was able to create a single template that neatly handles the functions of most of the existing templates. It's called {{hu-infl-nom}} (nom stands for "nominal" since it covers adjectives too) and is fully documented with many examples. Because it uses Lua, it's able to be a lot "smarter" and can do things like detecting what the final vowel or consonant is automatically. I hope you see it as an improvement. Is it ok if I replace the old deprecated templates with this new one? This should be easily doable with a bot. —CodeCat 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you wait with the bot? I'd like to take a look and do some testing. --Panda10 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Szia! Az akadémiai helyesírási szabályzat szótári része szerint a fenti szószerkezet különírandó: vegyes úszás. Tudnád javítani? Köszönettel, Einstein2 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Kijavítottam. Köszönöm, hogy szóltál. --Panda10 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Conjugation of átfésülEdit

Is the verb átfésül conjugated like fésül? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks in advance. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. --Panda10 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I also gave the template hu-IPA to a few verbs as well. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Now what about the verbs nyű and operál? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Panda10 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Three more verbs to conjugate, all ready for you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


In case of pages such as kurtizán, I created Category:Hungarian nouns needing inflection. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. --Panda10 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The entry piton has been added to the list. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hungarian words" appendicesEdit

Is there any particular reason you have been maintaining Appendix:Hungarian words A thru Appendix:Hungarian words Zs? They don't seem to do anything that Index:Hungarian doesn't. --Tropylium (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I correct typos in both, but otherwise I don't maintain them. The appendix contains a lot more words than the index (a good reminder of what needs to be added). The index contains only words mentioned in this wiki but shows more information about them. Unfortunately, the index has not been updated since April 2012 and it seems that it will stay that way. What is the reason you are asking? --Panda10 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Greek letter műEdit

Since you made an entry for Greek letter , I thought to myself "Why not add the category Category:hu:Greek letter names to the page for ?" --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi, is there a way to show the alternative forms in the conjugation table (furcsállsz/furcsállasz, furcsálltok/furcsállotok, furcsálltam/furcsállottam, furcsállnék/furcsállanék etc.)—as here? Einstein2 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Einstein2 The only way is to add a second conjugation table with different parameters. The current template does not allow variant forms within the same table. --Panda10 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it. Einstein2 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


I wanted to add a declension table to the entry but I couldn't because y is not a vowel. How can this be corrected? Einstein2 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily, use the old declension template {{hu-decl-k-back}}. For the long term, the module will have to be updated. We'll have to find out if this is feasible. --Panda10 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

elvész and other ingadozó álikes igékEdit

I was editing Wiktionary a few hours ago when I realized that the current conjugation template cannot deal with the concept of verbs that are regular but have an additional 3rd person singular form using the -ik conjugation (egerész(ik), heverész(ik), akadoz(ik), bomol/bomlik, tündököl/tündöklik, elvész/elveszik, hull/hullik, etc.).

Also, I left out the conjugation table for elvész because I couldn't find one that works in all moods and tenses and I couldn't find verbs that are conjugated similarly either. I think it's simply an irregular verb that should get its own template but I'm not entirely sure. 00:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are actually three distinct verbs (three lemma entries in dictionaries: elvész, elveszik, elvesz) that have similar conjugations differing only in 3rd person present. For the álikes igék, the lemma is e.g. akadozik, not *akadoz, so the 3rd person present form will appear as akadozik in the conjugation table. There is an article in ikes igék helyes használata. --Panda10 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You do have a point, however, these are not regular álikes igék, they belong to a sub-category of álikes igék that have two possible 3rd person singular conjugations (while I agree that akadoz, heverész and egerész are indeed weird, they are found in older texts along with gitároz and other such verbs, and I don't think that there are any real differences between tündököl/tündöklik and bomol/bomlik).
I think we can all agree that elvesz and elvész have very different meanings and can't be used interchangeably. For example, while one can say Elveszem a telefonodat, the verb elvész is strictly intransitive, which also probably explains why the form elveszik is gaining popularity as alternative form.
The websites I've visited and the articles I've read seem to suggest that elveszik is simply an irregular/alternative form of elvész in the 3rd person singular rather than a separate lemma because the conjugations of the two verb forms are otherwise equivalent. It doesn't really matter in the end but now I'm really curious about what an actual linguist would say.
Thanks for finding the template as well, for some reason I confused elvész with elveszt and I thought that the existing table wasn't appropriate. 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. The solution for the ingadozó álikes verbs could be two separate entries, where the -ik verb would be the main entry and the other would be the "alternative of" entry (each with its own conjugation table, pronunciation, etc.). The variant without -ik is the older one, to prove its validity, I'm sure we can find quotations in older literature. For other references by linguists, here is a link to the downloadable PDF version of Grétsy-Kemény: Nyelvművelő kéziszótár. It contains two entries related to the above discussion (elvesz(ik)-elvész and vesz-vész-veszik). Questions on the site are also answered by linguists. I've found another article, although you might have seen all of these already: Ikes kétségek --Panda10 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


An I.P. address added kitartás. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will fix it. --Panda10 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian length contrast, take twoEdit

Earlier this year you mentioned at BP that you will no longer insist on including information about minimal pairs distinguished by length on Hungarian entries. On the other hand, upon further consideration this still seems to me like handy information to have somewhere, so I've started a collection: User:Tropylium/Hungarian minimal pairs by length. Feel free to add more if you see it fit. (For now I've been leaving out inflected forms though.) --Tropylium (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I started a list a few years ago in Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation pairs. I no longer add this information to the pronunciation section, but occasionally I still add a comment under Usage notes. But the Appendix is the place to collect them. --Panda10 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, right, I should have checked if an appendix already exists :) --Tropylium (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Belated question on reversionEdit

In 2014(!) you reverted the etymology I put in for Hu. telek, but I'm not sure why. I do see the new etymology, but it seems that the information I added should be there as an alternative, since I got it from an academic publication. Mind you, I'm no expert on Hungarian by any means, but I took the info I added from here: András Róna-Tas, Árpád Berta, László Károly. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian (2011). Mellsworthy (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I should add "IIRC" to the above. It has been two years. However, dern it, I am certain I was quoting a source. Why Oh Why didn't I cite!! Mellsworthy (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it because you did not provide any resources. I have two printed etymology dictionaries and they don't say anything about a West Old Turkic origin. I don't have András Róna's book and I am not able to search in it online to double check what it says about this word. --Panda10 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I finally tracked down an oblique reference I could find online, on page 136 of an article based on Róna-Tas et al's work, here. Unfortunately, this reference does not gloss the West Old Turkish word or the Hungarian word, but it does make clear that sense 1 and sense 2 of the Hungarian noun (wiktionary only has one of these senses; they're not talking about telek 'winters') correspond to sense 1 and sense 2 of the WOT word, both based on the Turkic base-word til-, which I had to figure out means 'cut'. (See dilmek, which disagrees about the proto-form, but is talking about the same forms in the same languages; it seems there is disagreement in Turkic historical linguistics about how to interpret the voiced initials that occur specifically in Turkish and Turkmen.) The WOT derivative tilök thus means, '(thing) resulting from cutting', a normal semantic source for parcels of land. On page 163 of this pdf of Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 2, it says that the reference for the chain WOT *tilök borrowed into Old Hungarian telük > Mod. Hu. telek is page 884 of Róna-Tas et al. I'm not at a university anymore, so I can't check Róna-Tas et al, but I think the forms I found online at least show that I'm not completely misremembering, and even tell me a page to cite. I hope you don't mind if I revert your reversion, with the addition of a reference to Róna-Tas et al. Not doing it today because I wanna make sure we're all on the same page. --Mellsworthy (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's fine if you add the information with the appropriate references. --Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Jewish HungarianEdit

Hi Panda. I have a list of words used by Hungarian Jews, and I was wondering if you'd be able to verify their use and enter them into Wiktionary. I'd provide you with the given definitions and etymologies. Are you interested? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Metaknowledge. I'm swamped with multiple different projects at this moment and I'm afraid I won't be able to start a new one for a while. But I think it would be a good idea to add your list of words and the other information you have about them to an appendix, so it would be available for future work. --Panda10 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That's okay. I'll try to do that; I hope you make progress on your projects for the time being. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Hello Panda10, You have reverted my edits at borjú and nyár. I just wanted to find out which part of my edit you thought was wrong. Regards,Borovi4ok (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok: Hi, when you modify an etymology, please provide a valid source. For borjú, your change did not match the Hungarian etymology dictionary, for nyár, you modified a sourced etymology and added your own. If you have a source and it does not match the currently listed ety, the best would be to add a new section saying that this different source says something else. --Panda10 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Panda10,
thank you for your answer.
first of all, I provided the Chuvash term for "calf", in proper modern spelling. You can check it in any Chuvash dictionary available to you. What was the reason to delete that edit of mine? Borovi4ok (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Borovi4ok: I added the Chuvash term back. Sorry about that part. --Panda10 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
OK Panda10. In both edits, I did not delete any of the existing date, but only changed the representation to better convey the nature of these Turkic borrowings. Your etymology dictionary seems to put all turkic terms in one messy mixture, without explanations.
Also, I hope you are aware that "Bulgar Turkic" is the modern term for "Chuvash-type Turkic".
Good luck with your etymologies!Borovi4ok (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Borovi4ok: I did not know that "Bulgar Turkic" is the modern term for "Chuvash-type Turkic". I briefly searched the internet, but I could not find anything that would state this equality clearly. The ety dictionary has a lengthier explanation than what I provided at the entry, but it was too complex for me at the time to translate, not to mention the unusual characters that are in the Proto-language examples. I will try to add some more information. Thanks for bringing this up. --Panda10 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Panda10,
"Bulgar Turkic" is term I'm used to in modern Russian-language Turkology. However, I've just found out that Wikipedia uses Oghur languages (which also looks fine to me). See for yourself, which term looks best to you. Borovi4ok (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

pos= on affixesEdit

Is there a particular reason why you're categorising all the affixes by part of speech? Hungarian is the only language where I've seen this done, so it's rather different from the common practice. —CodeCat 20:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Some of the prefixes can be used to form both verbs and nouns or adjectives. It is best to keep the categories clean and not as a dump of different types of words. This may not be a common practice today, but could be tomorrow. --Panda10 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
But if the affixes are the same, why distinguish them by part of speech? The -s in backwards (adverb) is not different from the suffix in backwards (adjective). Why is it better to keep them separate, as you say? —CodeCat 20:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The prefixes may look the same, but they may not have the same meaning. Not to mention, that we are categorizing the entries, not the affixes. --Panda10 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
To disambiguate the affixes, you can use idN=. See for example -o and in- and their categories. —CodeCat 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to stay with the part of speech categorization. The idN system is much more complicated and less standardized. The category names may contain either a meaning or a part of speech:
The part of speech categorization is not as uncommon as you think:
--Panda10 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

American learning HungarianEdit

Hello! I am an American learning Hungarian :) I am new to editing, and was wondering if I could give you Hungarian words here so that you can add them if you like :)

Colbertadam (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I can help. If you'd like to learn how to edit, you could add a word, I would review it and correct it if needed, then you could learn from the corrections. If you are not interested in editing, you could just add the words to this list: Wiktionary:Requested entries (Hungarian). --Panda10 (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information :) Making a "note to self" here, the words (so far) are "gondoskodás" which comes from "gondoskodik", and "törődés" which comes from "törődik". The English equivalent for both nouns would be care, concern, care taking, looking after, etc. Also, I notice that "érdekel" means "I care (about it)" much like "tetszik" is "I like (it)" ...the subject of the verb being the object/person receiving the action, not the actual "doer" of the action... rather than "érdeklem/érdekelem" and "tetszem" for "I...". Is this correct for the use of "érdekel"? Thank you. Colbertadam (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

érdekel is to be interested in someone or something, tetszik is to like someone or something. Examples:
  • Érdekel ez a téma./Engem érdekel ez a téma. - This subject interests me.
  • Tetszik ez a kép./Nekem tetszik ez a kép. - I like this picture; this picture pleases me.
Hope I understood your question correctly. --Panda10 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant to you (a post from elsewhere)Edit

As you also edited my entries, I'd appreciate it if you took a quick look here and responded when possible. Thanks! --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

See my reply there. --Panda10 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for being so quick! --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I recently saw a discussion on the request for deletion page for the {{hu-suffix}} template where you said this:
"Ok, I will delete them after I reworked the entries. I have already started using {{af}}. This may take some time, though. {{hu-prefix}} has about 900 entries, {{hu-suffix}} has about 17,000. Re inflected forms: Adding an etymology section to English forms may have less practical value, since English is not an agglutinative language. It is different in Hungarian where nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and numerals can have more than 34 different inflected forms, verbs much much more. If a Hungarian editor is willing to add this information using {{affix}}, what's the harm in it? --Panda10 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)"
Has this changed? I see that you are changing my {{af}} templates to {{hu-suffix}} ones. Thanks for your response --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If you read the entire conversation, you will see that {{hu-suffix}} has functionality that {{af}} does not, so we will keep it. However, {{hu-prefix}} will be deleted after I reworked all entries. I changed your edits to keep the entries consistent. You can look at existing entries to see how they are structured. --Panda10 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I must have missed that bit. Thanks for bearing with me as I figure this out --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I wanted to drop by and thank you for all of your very hard work in improving our coverage of Hungarian, especially for adding IPA and etymology to every entry that you create or modify, and for helping me out with mine. The Wiktionary project is definitely being bettered by your work in this language. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Panda10 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Inflection of words like DemszkyEdit

I have been updating inflection tables to the best of my ability, and I recognize that there are a few cases not covered by {{hu-infl-nom}}, which usually have their cases described in one of these templates' documentation pages. That said, this word, using {{hu-decl-k-front1}}, does not fall under the case described there (nouns ending in "ee"), yet {{hu-infl-nom}} cannot be used here. Would you mind adding a quick addition to one of the template documentation pages explaining how to treat cases like this? Sorry I'm so wordy, and thanks a ton (also for going over all my edits - I'm making an increased effort to be meticulously careful with them) :) --AtalinaDove (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

At this moment, the only template that will work for this word is the one that it currently uses. I'd have to create a new template for these cases. The next several days will be hectic, so I won't have time to do it, but after next week I will take a look. I am way behind checking your edits, but eventually I get there... I saw that you started changing the inflection tables in the entries, that's very helpful, just make sure the old and new match exactly. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Good to know. I think I was recently added to the autopatrol group, so perhaps that will make things easier for you after you catch up. --AtalinaDove (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation requestEdit

From pizza nigger. en->hu. This will go on the Hungarian Wiktionary.

"(offensive, slang) a person of Italian descent" Philmonte101 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding declensionsEdit

Hi again!

I've been noting with a request most entries that don't have a declension table yet (as you've probably noticed). Since there are so many, and it must take up quite a bit of your time, I was wondering if you knew of any reliable resources I could use to search and verify declensions so that I could possibly add them myself. I would love to help out in this way if possible, but if it's something that should really be left to someone who speaks the language, then that's fine. Also, if you'd like me to stop adding so many requests, just let me know. --AtalinaDove (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the requests. It's always very helpful when you mark the entries because it's easy to locate them in one place. I'd like to keep adding the declensions. But if you are interested in Hungarian declensions, there is a fairly reliable source (not 100% accurate, unfortunately): [2]. The case order is not exactly the same as ours. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for the source, and for looking after my edits. I am really interested in Hungarian, but I'm just a beginner so far, so it's good to know where to look for things like declension (other than Wiktionary, of course). --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to ask - are the etymology requests also useful? I usually just add them to words I'm interested in knowing the etymology of, but I could start adding them to all the entries I see without them. --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they are also useful, but it will take more time to complete them. --Panda10 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks again. --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello Panda10 --

I just added my first entry, magyarul. :) I'm sure I've missed something, so I'd very much appreciate it if you could double-check the entry. For instance, I'm not sure if the second sense should be transitive instead.

Thank you,

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Not too bad for a first entry. :) Both senses are intransitive. The etymology can be tricky, so if you are not sure, it's better to omit the section entirely. --Panda10 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you!
I've poked through the Etimologiai szótár entry a bit, thank you for the pointer. Would it be correct to add a ===Related terms=== section that includes fagy? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Based on their entry in Zaicz's Etimologiai szótár, I don't think they are related etymologically. If you'd like to mention fagy, it would be fine to include it in a ===See also=== section in fázik. --Panda10 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian puskaEdit

Hey, do you have an etymology for this word? A Serbo-Croatian authority claims that the Slavic word is borrowed through Hungarian (ultimately from Old High German būhse/German Büchse), but our Hungarian entry says that it's the other way around. Normally I'd trust the first source, but the fact that the Hungarian word doesn't have a front vowel is fishy, and for all I know the metathesis might be a German dialect thing. Crom daba (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I updated it. --Panda10 (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you know anything about when the cheat sheet sense developed? Serbo-Croatian (or maybe just Serbian?) has puškica (diminutive of puška) with the same meaning. Crom daba (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I added ety 2. --Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes native speakers of Hungarian makeEdit

Szia Panda10, I have heard the Hungarian is a very hard language for foreigners to learn, due to the agglutination of the language. Would native Hungarian speakers make mistakes with things like these? Köszönöm – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 00:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, is the terms égnek áll syllabalised as [ˈeːɡ.nɛ.kaːlː] or [ˈeːɡ.nɛk.aːlː]AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 01:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there can be mistakes, some are considered worse than others. Mistakes in agglutination are present mostly in substandard speech and writing. The expression égnek áll contains two separate words, so they are syllabized separately: ég-nek áll. However, in continuous speech the expression is pronounced as one word, accent on the first syllable. --Panda10 (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Cool! Can you learn other 'Uralic' languages easily? – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've never tried, so I can't say. --Panda10 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Etym at könyvEdit

This is currently shown as deriving from a Slavic language, and suggests a comparison to Proto-Slavic *kъnjiga. However, the etym at *kъnjiga currently states that the Hungarian term cannot have come from Proto-Slavic, and suggests instead a derivation from a Turkic language, comparing it with Proto-Turkic *küiniŋ, with an ultimate origin in Middle Chinese (/kɣiuᴇnX, kɣiuᴇnH/ obsolete or nonstandard characters (ᴇᴇ), invalid IPA characters (ᴇXᴇH), scroll).

I don't suppose you have any further insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I updated the etymology the best I could. The "compare" section contains several languages and words, I copied them as they were in the reference, I don't know their original form. Let me know if you need more information. --Panda10 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Names in HungarianEdit

Hey panda10, is it actually true that hungarian surnames go before first names? Quite bizarre, compared to other cultures around Hungary.

PS, is it actually true you live in the US (according to WT:Administrators)? I thought you lived in Hungary!! BTW I live in Australia – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 03:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes and yes. I think Eirikr's explanation below is very helpful. --Panda10 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the Hungarian language itself is rather "bizarre", compared to the other mostly Indo-European languages of Europe. The difference in surname / given-name order seems fitting somehow, given the profound differences in vocabulary and grammar. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Panda10 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.



I see that the Etimológiai Szótár breaks out three etyms for this term. However, the nook sense seems much more likely to have developed out of the angle, wedge senses rather than from nail, and one reading of . See also the development of English nook, which demonstrates a similar semantic development. As such, I'm not sure this really merits three etym sections; just two would seem to suffice. What do you think? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the three sections based on the references. I think it's best to stick to what the linguists say about this. Also, we have a different set of derived terms based on the different etymologies. There is another online etymological dictionary and it has also three entries: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár (Tótfalusi István) (szeg1, szeg2, szeg3). Maybe you can help to clarify ety3. It is a semantic variant of the noun szeg, specifically of its original Proto-Ugric meaning of "wedge" in the sense of a wedge-like projection, corner, wedge-shaped area. I am curious, though, and if you don't mind, I'd like to ask: What is the reason you study Hungarian? Not too many people are interested in etymologies when they learn a language. :) --Panda10 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Re: keeping three, understood. I think etym 3 would make more sense to say that the nook sense came from wedge; from what I can tell, it seems the angle or wedge senses are older, while nail probably also arose as an extension of the wedge sense.
  • Re: etym interest in general, I find that my own approach to language learning is very analytic -- if I can understand the pieces, and how they interrelate, I gain a better grasp of the language as a whole. It's how I learned English, for that matter, as a kid. In two words, I'm a "word nerd". :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I updated it, adding more information from Zaicz and Tótfalusi. As for etym learning: Good for you! --Panda10 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

malac vs. disznóEdit

If you have the time and interest, I'd greatly appreciate etyms for these entries, and perhaps some information about how to distinguish these terms (usage, connotations, etc.).

Also, is the gloss for malac at tengerimalac correct? That says just "pig", while the full malac entry says "piglet".

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I added more information to both. They can be interchangeable in many situations, although for a young piglet you would always use malac. As for the dirty meaning, disznó is very strong, malac can be playful. The gloss for tengerimalac is correct. --Panda10 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

bolondok vs bolondakEdit

Hello / Szervusz,

You have reverted this edit - I would like to say that the current form is incorrect, i.e. "bolondat" or "bolondak" is incorrect, instead it should be "bolondot" and "bolondok" etc.

Best regards, Whitepixels (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Whitepixels: Hi, sorry I reverted it but my thought was that adjectives can have different declensions than nouns. See felelős (adjective and noun). There are adjectives that have both forms, such as boldogak-boldogok (adjective) - boldogok (noun) [3]. When I googled bolondat, there were only a few hits [4]. The Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelvtudományi Intézet webpage lists only bolondok-bolondot. [5]. I could add both saying that bolondak/bolondat is very rare. Unless you have a source that says bolondak/bolondat are incorrect forms. --Panda10 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

kellemes and kellEdit

Thank you for updating the etymology at kellemes. The kell entry currently only has verb senses; presumably it also has adjective senses? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kell is a verb. No adjective senses. I was trying to translate the information for kellemes from Gabor Zaicz's dictionary. Maybe it's misleading?
  • From Gabor Zaicz: kellemes [1270 tn. (?), 1533] Származékszó, a kell ’szükséges; kellemes’ ige -s melléknévképzővel ellátott alakja. A szó belseji m mozzanatos igeképző, vagy névszóképző.
  • From Vilma Eőry: kellemes: A → kell ‘szükséges; tetszik’ ige származéka.
  • For the senses (in Hungarian), see A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára. --Panda10 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Given the examples, it seems like kell sense #2 describes the thing itself as to be needed, required; to be wanted, desired. If my understanding is accurate, I think the sense development went kell (to be desired)kellem (that which is desired → pleasure?)kellemes (pleasant). Is that correct? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That would be the logical development. But according to Zaicz, the noun kellem is a back-formation from kellemes. --Panda10 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm curious if there are other cases where an expected intermediate form is actually a newer coinage. Are there other XXX terms that have XXX-emes derivatives, but no XXX-em derivative? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I searched Zaicz, but I could not find another example in that particular source. Sorry. --Panda10 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you for looking! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The English gloss for Hungarian állEdit

Hello Panda10 --

I saw your recent change to the gloss of áll in the állomás entry. My edit was motivated by a mismatch in senses between the Hungarian verb and the English gloss.

The Hungarian verb áll includes a sense of motion that is entirely absent from the English verb stand. In English, stand only refers to “being in one location”. There might be limited movement, such as stand up or even stand down, but the verb describes action in that one location.

For instance, in Hungarian, you can say Én állok a szálloda mögött. (I stand behind the hotel.) In both the Hungarian and the English, the verb implies that "I" am not moving, that I am staying in one place.

However, in Hungarian, you can also say Állok a tükörhöz (*I stand to the mirror, bad English grammar). In Hungarian, the verb can include a sense of motion -- indicating instead that the subject of the verb is changing locations, and that the subject then stands at the destination. In English, the sentence doesn't make any sense with just the verb stand -- one cannot grammatically stand to anything as a direction or motion (physically; there are certain set phrases like stand to attention that refer to mental state). To make sense in English, we need to add another verb that expresses the sense of "changing location": I go to the mirror and stand.

Does that explanation make sense? Would you be open to expanding the gloss for áll? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Thank you for your analysis. I've found it very interesting. There is a difference between "valahol áll" and "valahová áll". The latter involves movement and it would not be translated with "stand". The entry áll contains only the most basic meaning. I double checked the verb áll in A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára. It lists VIII major senses and 45 subsenses under them. Obviously, we can't include all of them in a gloss in állomás. Sense IV is "to take up a place somewhere", "to position oneself", meaning to step/go to a place and stay there. The expressions "a tükörhöz áll (to step to the mirror)", "a székre áll (to step onto the stool)", "a zuhany alá áll (to step under the shower)", "a testvére mellé áll (to come to stand beside one's sibling", "talpra áll (to get to one's feet)" belong to this sense. Another subsense within IV is that a vehicle moves somewhere and stays there for a certain time: "A kocsi a ház elé állt." To me, állomás is the place where the trains, buses stop and spend time waiting. You can expand the gloss if you wish. I removed "to go and stand" because it did not make sense to me phrased like that. Can you phrase it differently based on the above? --Panda10 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this! Upon reflection, I agree with your decision about vasutállomás. At the time of my edit, I was focused on the idea of the train moving into and then stopping at the station, but I think you're right that the stop sense is clearly the most salient part of the meaning here. :)
8 major senses and 45 sub-senses is a *lot*. This is clearly an important verb in Hungarian, I suppose much like get in English. I'd be quite interested in expanding the current áll entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I will work on it. It might take some time. It would be helpful if you'd take a look at the growing definitions and examples from time to time just to make sure the English rendition is correct. By the way, áll has transitive senses, as well, so the conjugation will have to show the transitive forms. --Panda10 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Happy to have a look from time to time. :)
Re: transitivity, I'm surprised. :) I haven't run into any transitive uses, and the entry at [[hu:áll]] prominently displays tárgyatlan (intransitive) at the top, so I went with that. Thank you for the clarification. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed itEdit

Hello! Recently, seen your problem and I think Category:Hungarian general pronouns seems ok now. :) ~ Z (m) 13:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@HastaLaVi2: Thank you for fixing it! Sorry to cause the error. :( --Panda10 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I am not from this wiki. But I am writing modules on Turkish wiktionary, just seen your problem by accident. Anyways, if you have any problem you can just ping me, I always love to help. ~ Z (m) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian help: "csurog"Edit

I see you are active here adding Hungarian words. Can you add the word "csurog" to Wiktionary? I don't speak Hungarian and I can't find out its exact meaning online. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Robin van der Vliet I added both csurog and csorog. They are alternative forms. --Panda10 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Szia, légyszi javítsd vissza a verzét. A definíció egyértelműen nem versekről beszél, hanem dalokról. Úgyismint a popzenék tipikus felépítése, ami angolban verse-chorus, magyarban verze-refrénnek hívják. Köszi!-- 17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Értem. Visszajavítottam. --Panda10 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, közben gondolkodtam, és a versszak is jó. Mondjuk egy templomi ének esetében nyilván az utóbbi szót használnám. Bocs, ha hirtelen voltam.-- 17:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Semmi baj. Most már mind a kettő ott van. :) --Panda10 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Füzek + fűzek?Edit


Ennek kapcsán kérdezem: a fűzek nem egyszerűen a füzek alak hibás (vagy ha úgy tetszik, szubsztandard) helyesírású változata? Nem világos számomra, hogy ezt miért (lenne) érdemes felvennünk. Következik-e ebből az, hogy pl. a mindig mellett a mindíg alakot is felvegyük, meg még kismillió más mindennapos tévesztést? Adam78 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Azt hiszem, azért adtam hozzá ezeket, mert az MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézetének Alaktani táblázataiban is szerepelnek, bár zárójelben. Persze ők sem mindig tévedhetetlenek. Talán régies alakok? Nem ragaszkodom hozzájuk. Ha úgy gondolod, hogy nem helyesek, kiveszem őket. Egyébként szeretném megköszönöm a szerkesztéseidet. Nagyon sokat segítenek. --Panda10 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

-gráfus / -gráfiaEdit

Mindkét elválasztás helyes: 231. pont, A magyar helyesírás szabályai, 12. kiadás (The Rules of Hungarian Orthography, 12th edition), MTA, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2015, →ISBN

Egyébként az AkH is fent van a neten, belinkeltem a template-be, remélem jó lett.-- 23:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Igen, jó. Köszi a javításokat. Panda10 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


Azért nem írtam etimológiát hozzá (a te javaslatod alapján), mert semmilyen nyomát nem találom, hogy létezne ilyen szó. Se internetes tipográfiai szótárakban, se az Eckhardt-féle francia nagyszótárban, de még a Larousse-ban se. Ugyanekkora méretű szótárak rendszerint már bőven tartalmaznak szakszavakat is. A Duden-ben pl. benne is van a Divis, és az orosz és az angol is átvette ezt a szót a németből. Mivel a nyomdai szavak egy jó nagy részét mi is a németből vettük át, el tudom képzelni, hogy ezt is. Felőlem bennmaradhat, csak mivel nagy hangsúlyt fektetsz a pontosságra, gondoltam, szeretnél tudni róla.-- 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A Tótfalusi Idegenszó-tárban benne van mint nyomdaipari szakszó. Panda10 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Igen, éppen azt mondom, hogy láttam, és hogy miért nem adtam hozzá mégse.-- 22:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Sikerült megtalálnom a diviz szót két olyan korai nyomdászati könyvben, ahol még nem magyarosították, és mindkettőben német leírás szerint Divis-ként szerepel, nem divise-ként: az egyik 1897-ből van, 37. oldal, a másik 1905-ből, 13.oldal. A Wikiszótár szerint is német az etimológiája, ők ezekből a szótárakból dolgoztak. Összevetve ezt azzal, hogy a franciák nem tudnak róla, hogy létezne ilyen szavuk, szerintem itt a Tótfalusi téved. Főleg, mert a Wikiszótáras forrásmunkák között is szerepel az Idegenszó-tár, és mégse ezt az etimológiát hozták, ezek szerint találtak megbízhatóbb forrást. Átjavítottam a szócikket, de mivel nem tudom, hogy a forrásmunka listából melyik műben találták meg, legfeljebb a Wikiszótár linket tudom betenni referenciának.-- 08:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, leave it as from German. It's interesting that Wikiszótár uses the same Tótfalusi dictionaries (both the Idegenszó-tár and the Nagyszótár) and still marked it as from German. Since I researched it too, I want to leave this information here just for the record.
Printed dictionaries that say it's from French:
Bakos Ferenc: Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989
diviz fr, nyomd kötőjel, választójel
Tótfalusi István: Idegenszó-tár, Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2005
diviz nyomd kötőjel, választójel
fr divise 'ua.'
Bakos Ferenc: Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006
diviz fr, nyomd kötőjel, választójel
Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor: Idegen szavak szótára, Osiris Kiadó, 2007
diviz [lat-fr] kötőjel, kiskötőjel, elválasztójel
Note: The two source languages connected with a hyphen in the above line mean borrowed from two languages; it is not using an arrow in this case which would mean that it went from one language to the other. This is an explanation from the book.
Online sources with etymology that say it's from French:
Tótfalusi István: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár - Szókincsháló
Tótfalusi István: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár - Arcanum (different website, but same dictionary as above)
Büky László: Mínuszos hír, Édes anyanyelvünk, bottom of page 12.
Old dictionaries that contain the word with different spelling, no etymology:
Bíró Miklós: Nyomdászati Lexikon, 1936
The actual entry is Divíz with long í. It points to kötőjel, where it is listed as divis.
Pusztai Ferencz: Nyomdászati encziklopédia, PALLAS IRODALMI ÉS NYOMDAI RÉSZVÉNYTÁRSASÁG, 1902
Divis, l. Kötőjel.
Pusztai Ferencz: Nyomdászati mesterszók, Pallas Részvénytársaság nyomdája, 1902
Spelled: divíz (it is not a headword, one has to search for it)
I also asked Lmaltier, a French Wiktionary editor with excellent English, you can see his reply below. There is a French word divisé which is some kind of participle of the French diviser that has a sense labeled typography. Did Tótfalusi and all the others left the accent off the letter e? Did they copy the same incorrect information from each other? I don't know and I don't want to guess and I don't know how to reach Sarkadi Zsolt, the Wikiszótár editor to find out which source he used for the German etymology. We both spent a lot of time time with research. :)
Panda10 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and effort spent on researching this. There is an e-mail address listed on Wikiszótár (wikiszotar(kukac), however, I'm not sure it would reach the editor. It's probably used for website maintenance issues and such. To me, finding the word with the original German spelling in two different works is the most convincing, coupled with the fact that I couldn't find any trace of such a word in French dictionaries, or in actual usage. And I just wanted to make a note of it here, to avoid any misunderstanding about why I corrected the etymology, since all of this information does not fit in the article or the edit comment. I know none of this is absolute proof, but I suppose when it comes to the origin of words, sometimes the best we can do is make educated guesses. Thank you again and thank you Lmaltier as well, for clarifying the French part.-- 08:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Translation of the typographic definition of diviser: cut a word at the end of a line, according to some rules. For me, there is no French word divise meaning hyphen (nothing found about such a word). Nonetheless, diviz might be of French origin, I would not be surprised, but I have no idea... Lmaltier (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

hiányzó igealakokEdit

Hiányoznak a következő igealakok a megfelelő táblázatokból:
eltör: eltörött
támad: támadt
Hozzá tudnád adni? Én nem találtam ilyen paramétert.-- 21:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hozzáadtam. Nézd meg, hogy így gondoltad-e. Panda10 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Köszi. Én úgy gondoltam, hogy mindkét alakjuk helyes (eltört/eltörött és támadt/támadott), múlt idejű alakként. Melléknévi igenévként ritkán hallani, ezért ott nem tudom, mi a jó. A támadt/támadott-ra találtam is egy cikket, ahol leírják, hogy jelentés-, illetve vonzatbeli különbség van köztük, pl.
"Támadt egy probléma." nem pedig *"Támadott egy probléma."
"Három kislányt támadott meg egy kutya." nem pedig *"Három kislányt támadt meg egy kutya."
Az eltört/eltörött-nek nem néztem utána, de meglepődnék, ha a kettőből valamelyik hibás lenne. (Bár ez nem jelent semmit, mert meglepődtem a könyörgöm-ön is, hogy helytelen.)
Viszont, ha már itt tartunk, hadd kérdezzek valamit, mert úgy tűnik, értesz ehhez, vagy tanultad. Nem tudod véletlenül, hogy magyar nyelvészeti terminológiában van-e az ilyen igékre valamilyen szó? Tehát ahol több változata is van ugyanannak az igealaknak. Angolul "abundant verb"-nek hívják, de magyarban csak rendhagyó igeként találkoztam vele (más nyelvekkel kapcsolatban), ami nyilván egy jóval tágabb fogalom.-- 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Melléknévi igenévként is helyes a hosszabb alak. Az eltörött inkább régies (az eltörött kancsó), a támadott viszont ma is használatos (a támadott jogszabály), de csak abban az egy értelemben, hogy valaki/valami ellen megy. A cikk érdekes volt. Sajnos a mi igeragozási sablonjainkba a kettős múlt idő nincs beleépítve. Itt van egy érdekes tanulmány: Jakab László: Tanulmányok az igeragozás köréből, 1999, a fejezet, ami ide vonatkozik: "A mai magyar köznyelv múlt idejű alakjai".
Lehetséges megoldások:
  1. Egy megjegyzésben el lehet magyarázni a kettős alakot és az esetleges jelentésbeli eltérést. A megjegyzés lehet a Usage notes alatt vagy közvetlenül a megfelelő jelentés után.
  2. Az igeragozási sablonokat User:Qorilla készítette. Utolsó szerkesztése 2016 júniusában volt. Talán lehetne neki üzenni, hogy volna-e ideje és kedve egy rövid időre visszatérni és ezt a jelenséget hozzáadni.
  3. Meg lehet kérni valakit a Beer parlour üzenőfalán, hogy segítsen ebben. Egyszerűbb változtatásokat én is meg tudtam csinálni régebben, de ez egy kicsit bonyolult.
Az abundant verb jelentése eszerint a forrás szerint (a latin nyelvre vonatkozóan): "verbs having the same meaning expressed by different forms of conjugation". A mi esetünket egy kicsit másnak érzem, mert itt jelentéshasadás is van. Ezt a szót használja az általad talált cikk. Más magyar szakszót nem tudok erre. Talán User:Adam78 többet tud erről. Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sajnos nem tudok egyebet, csak a szabad váltakozás jut eszembe. Adam78 (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Igen, ez már akkor is felmerült, de végül csak a melléknévi igenévnél csináltam erre opciót. Hozzáadhatok egy újabb flaget, amivel mindkét alak megjelenik az E/3 múlt időnél is. Qorilla (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Qorilla: Köszönöm, hogy válaszoltál. Nagy segítség lenne, ha hozzáadnád az új flaget. A programozási szaktudásod nélkül elég nehezen mennek a változtatások. Panda10 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Végül hozzáadtam egy új paramétert az olyan igék miatt, mint az ír, aminek különbözik a múlt ideje és a bef. mni. igeneve (legalábbis a mai magyar nyelvben). Beleírtam a dokumentációba is. Panda10 és @Adam78, köszönöm a válaszokat, nekem az is segítség, ha tudom, hogy nincs pontos magyar megfelelője.-- 18:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ál: shouldn't it be ál- instead, for its Hungarian meaning?Edit

Although it exists as a full-fledged adjective, it's rather peripheral (see also the reference I added). I wonder if it should be discussed under ál- instead, perhaps with a mere link from the current entry. Adam78 (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The prefix ál- existed before, however, in 2009 I changed it from prefix to adjective. But I agree that it makes sense to have both. The verb áltat is from the adjective ál, and probably not from the prefix ál-. I will rework it. Thanks for bringing it up. Panda10 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Questionable comparisons of adjectivesEdit

I'd respectfully suggest that you delete both the entry of and the link to akkreditáltabb, akadálytalanabb, ajánlottabb, adósabb, and adminisztratívabb (maybe aggódóbb too). Just like one cannot be "a little pregnant" (as the joke goes), there are other adjectives as well that just don't make much sense in comparative and superlative forms. I wonder if you could flag these adjectives (and all the other similar ones) in their inflections as incomparable? Adam78 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: legszándékosabban, legvádlóbban, legnyilvánosabban, legjogtalanabbul, legittasabban, legállandóbban, vádlóbban, and ideiglenesebben are also questionable in my opinion. Adam78 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC) + algebraibb Adam78 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I deleted the first five, but then started checking in Google Books. All returned hits except akkreditáltabb and legittasabban. So shouldn't we leave them? Panda10 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's our task to invent dubious concepts just because they are grammatically possible. There may be a reference to practically everything (as there is a reference for "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" because someone invented it on one occasion), but we can just leave them as rare, occasional exceptions to the rule (or hapax legomena, nonce words). Please don't restore any, I'd say. Adam78 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I do see your point but it's not about inventing dubious concepts. It's about recording usage. The form entries can be very useful to users who know nothing about Hungarian. For example, I don't know Latin, but when I need to look up inflected words in a sentence, the form entries are really useful to point to their corresponding lemma entries. If these forms are deleted everywhere (meaning they are not even in the inflection tables), the search engine will not recognize them and will not give a hint to the user where to find the lemma entry. So I'm not sure deleting them is the best way to handle this. Other options:
  1. Keep the forms and add a recommendation in the Usage note section of the main entry about not using them.
  2. Delete the forms, mark the main entry as "not comparable", but add the comparison forms in Usage notes as a grammatical possibility, but rare usage.
  3. Delete the forms, but keep them in the main entry's headline and mark them rare.
What do you think? Panda10 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I prefer the second. On the other hand, I think there are many more noun forms with "-ul/-ül" which would be more important but which are systematically overlooked and dismissed at the moment. See specific examples (about a hundred in magnitude, only those that have already occurred in actual texts) under w:hu:Essivus-modalis. Adam78 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will use option 2 and I will add the "-ul/-ül" forms to the declension tables using the Wikipedia examples. Panda10 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) Adam78 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Panda10".